APPLICANT: Well, I type about 90 words a minute. I'm completely well-versed in all IBM and Macintosh programs.

GEORGE: (looking over her resume) Well Miss Coggins you're ah, obviously qualified for the job. You've all the necessary skills and experience. But you're extremely attractive. you're gorgeous. I'm looking at you, I can't even remember my name. So ah, I'm afraid this is not going to work out (he crumples her resume into a ball) Thanks for coming in.

hardinparamedic:How, in the hell, is this not gender discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Can someone who has a GED in Law Explain this to me?

It's not that she's female, it's that he's attracted to her. If he were bi, he could fire a male OR female employee. It's not discrimination on the basis of her sex, it's discrimination on the basis of his lust, regardless of what sex he's lusting for.

Drew P Balls:Thank goodness for right to work legislation. I think it may have saved that dentist's marriage.

And what a marriage it is too!

"Honey, I wanted to have an affair with an attractive woman.""WHAT???""But it's OK! I fired her!""Oh, well, OK then. Because I know for a fact that the only way you would ever meet another attractive woman is if she worked for you."

They must be fundies. This sounds like a "remove the temptation" thing that would sound completely reasonable and logical to people like that.

It's true. Target hires reasonably attractive employees while K-Mart seems to hire the ugliest, saddest people they can find. While I salute their charity efforts, it's not really bringing customers in to the store.

She had warned the opinion could allow bosses to legally fire ... small-breasted workers in favor of big-breasted workers.

If I recall correctly, I believe you're allowed to discriminate against ugly/attractive people during the hiring process...even without the "my wife made me do it" defense. It would be odd to have mismatching rulings on hiring and firing employees based the same criterion.

That being said, it seems like nowadays you can be fired for any made-up reason, the employer just has to choose a politically correct made-up reason. Not that it really matters, when it comes down to it.

The ruling upholds a judge's decision to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed against Fort Dodge dentist James Knight, who fired assistant Melissa Nelson, even while acknowledging she had been a stellar employee for 10 years. Knight and his wife believed that his attraction to Nelson - two decades younger than the dentist - had become a threat to their marriage. Nelson, now 33, was replaced by another woman; Knight had an all-female staff.

I'll bet that all-female staff got a little younger and cheaper to pay.

On the upside, Ms Nelson can now put on her resume "I was fired for being too pretty."

Interviewer: You worked there for 10 years?Nelson: Yes. I was a stellar employee. I revamped the scheduling...Interviewer: And he fired you after ten years for being too pretty?Nelson: Yes. I also color coded the inventory to speed...Interviewer: So, you were younger and you got prettier. What? Nu-boobs? Were you a young fatty?Nelson: No! I just got so pretty that I was a threat to his marriage. Now, please. I would like to discuss my qualifications. I have a degree...Interviewer: Well, here is our problem: Are you just going to continue to get prettier? If we hired you and you and in a few years, you achieve Anniston grade beauty, then we might have to fire you also. You can see our concern. So, do you anticipate getting prettier?

Based on the court's logic I would expect that the fired worker could sue for sexual harassment. He didn't act on his impulses in either case but obviously he thought about it. Mentally he violated her like a screen door in a hurricane. That should be good enough.

hardinparamedic:How, in the hell, is this not gender discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Can someone who has a GED in Law Explain this to me?

Well, from the ruling, it's based on attraction, not gender. He could just as easily have fired a man whom he felt unduly attracted to.

This is the same supreme court that legalized gay marriage in the state, so they have a track record of not taking gender into account.

I guess the reality that there are more heterosexual males in positions of power and therefore more women that can legally be fired for hotness doesn't matter.

So now I guess the gameplan is: hit on the hotties, but not in an overtly obvious way (so they can't sue for sexual harrassment). If they don't respond positively, fire the biatches. If they complain, cite the Iowa supreme court. Say that they threatened your marriage/peace of mind/whatever. Then the other hotties will see what the score is and learn to play ball or hit the road. Life is good.

tortilla burger:She had warned the opinion could allow bosses to legally fire ... small-breasted workers in favor of big-breasted workers.

If I recall correctly, I believe you're allowed to discriminate against ugly/attractive people during the hiring process...even without the "my wife made me do it" defense. It would be odd to have mismatching rulings on hiring and firing employees based the same criterion.

That being said, it seems like nowadays you can be fired for any made-up reason, the employer just has to choose a politically correct made-up reason. Not that it really matters, when it comes down to it.

In a right to work state you can be fired for any reason that doesn't discriminate against a protected class?

"I don't like the way you answer the phone. Fired.""I don't like the way you lean back in your chair after lunch. Fired""You have a nasally voice that makes the managers want to throw you off the roof. Fired"

jayhawk88:Drew P Balls: Thank goodness for right to work legislation. I think it may have saved that dentist's marriage.

And what a marriage it is too!

"Honey, I wanted to have an affair with an attractive woman.""WHAT???""But it's OK! I fired her!""Oh, well, OK then. Because I know for a fact that the only way you would ever meet another attractive woman is if she worked for you."

They must be fundies. This sounds like a "remove the temptation" thing that would sound completely reasonable and logical to people like that.

If I remember the earlier story correctly, Boss Hog kept sending explicit texts to the employee and his wife found out and - after meeting with his pastor - decided to fire her because they couldn't legally dress her in a burka.

redmid17:tortilla burger: She had warned the opinion could allow bosses to legally fire ... small-breasted workers in favor of big-breasted workers.

If I recall correctly, I believe you're allowed to discriminate against ugly/attractive people during the hiring process...even without the "my wife made me do it" defense. It would be odd to have mismatching rulings on hiring and firing employees based the same criterion.

That being said, it seems like nowadays you can be fired for any made-up reason, the employer just has to choose a politically correct made-up reason. Not that it really matters, when it comes down to it.

In a right to work state you can be fired for any reason that doesn't discriminate against a protected class?

"I don't like the way you answer the phone. Fired.""I don't like the way you lean back in your chair after lunch. Fired""You have a nasally voice that makes the managers want to throw you off the roof. Fired"

"Honey, I wanted to have an affair with an attractive woman.""WHAT???""But it's OK! I fired her!""Oh, well, OK then. Because I know for a fact that the only way you would ever meet another attractive woman is if she worked for you."

They must be fundies. This sounds like a "remove the temptation" thing that would sound completely reasonable and logical to people like that.

If I remember the earlier story correctly, Boss Hog kept sending explicit texts to the employee and his wife found out and - after meeting with his pastor - decided to fire her because they couldn't legally dress her in a burka.

Harry Freakstorm:The ruling upholds a judge's decision to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed against Fort Dodge dentist James Knight, who fired assistant Melissa Nelson, even while acknowledging she had been a stellar employee for 10 years. Knight and his wife believed that his attraction to Nelson - two decades younger than the dentist - had become a threat to their marriage. Nelson, now 33, was replaced by another woman; Knight had an all-female staff.

I'll bet that all-female staff got a little younger and cheaper to pay.

On the upside, Ms Nelson can now put on her resume "I was fired for being too pretty."

Interviewer: You worked there for 10 years?Nelson: Yes. I was a stellar employee. I revamped the scheduling...Interviewer: And he fired you after ten years for being too pretty?Nelson: Yes. I also color coded the inventory to speed...Interviewer: So, you were younger and you got prettier. What? Nu-boobs? Were you a young fatty?Nelson: No! I just got so pretty that I was a threat to his marriage. Now, please. I would like to discuss my qualifications. I have a degree...Interviewer: Well, here is our problem: Are you just going to continue to get prettier? If we hired you and you and in a few years, you achieve Anniston grade beauty, then we might have to fire you also. You can see our concern. So, do you anticipate getting prettier?